ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway.

The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.

All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.

All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.

Thank you for responding. (I was hoping there was a way too tone down the pesky Jap subs.....losing a an AK full of supplies hurts...but if it more historical without the switch...I am ok with that.)

All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway.

The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.

All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.

I would like to know where you got those figures.

I checked the American Merchant Marine at War web site at http://www.usmm.org and got a list of merchant ships sunk by torpedos/sub attack and got these figures for the entire war:

Total for the IO was 41 attacks and 36 sunk. Add that to the Pacific/West Coast/Alaska numbers previously posted by me and that comes to 100 attacks with 68 ships sunk. This is for the entire war. The numbers still don't add up to the "60 ships in the first 6 months".

There were other ships sunk/loss listed but they were NOT by submarine attack.

I must respectfully disagree with your figures and conclusions. The Japanese sub doctrine was to attack Combat units, with CV`s at the top of the list, and then BB`s and CA`s with merchants at the bottom if at all. It must be blindingly obvious that the I/R-Boats, even when they could, never even bothered to try and attack merchant shipping along the west coast or we would have had a west coast " Black Week " as the U-Boats gave the East Coast.

There were never, ever, the kinds of historical losses along the West Coast - Pearl - Suva - Brisbane supply route that I`m seeing in my current 3 CG starts.

The combination of deadly Sub attacks and useless Allied early way Anti Sub with too few useless escorts, results in ***far too much*** attrition in ships and important cargo. It`s hard to believe that this " new" setting was play tested in a few full VS The AI campaign tests and seems just another way the allies get " slowed down" in the AE version of game and provides more " fun" for the vocal PBEM folks.

This is a _massive_ change in the game design, and was a very poor design decision IMO for those amoung us who still view AE/WITP as a strategic simulation. It`s also something not readly " fixed" in the editor, if at all.

PS: Mike Scholl. I and quite a few other people played with the historical setting "on"

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl I think the biggest reason was that nobody ever played with it set to the historical choice anyway.

The "Historical choice" wasn't historical.

All major submarine navies had pre-war ideas of not going after merchant ships, this had been a stipulation in at least one of the pre-war treaties. However, none of the pre-war navies stuck to this idea once they were at war. Japanese submarines sank about 60 merchant ships in the first six months of the war - that was tough to do in WITP even with the "no doctrine" setting. With the "doctrine" setting on it was impossible. Hence "doctrine on" was not actually historical. Hence we decided there were more useful switches (such as realistic factories) we could put in the game instead.

In WitP the IJN boats almost always get to shoot at the Allied escorts first. And the IJN ASW ships almost always get to shoot at the Allied subs first. If there was really much of a connection to reality in this particular set of mechanics the RL historical losses of each side should reflect it. They do not.

This is a JFB thing. I argued this years ago with the original WiTP. The I class submarine had first rate torpedoes and crews. However, the boat was a pig. It was too large, too noisy and could only dive to 200 feet. The latter fact is critical, as the boat can't get under the thermal layer, making it easy to detect by primitive sonar. None of this is reflected in the DB. Additionally, these things can take more punishment than a cruiser. In fact, this performance had a lot to do with the poor performance of Japanese ASW. As their subs could only dive to 200 feet, they assumed that USN subs were also so limited, causing them to set their depth charges to no neeper that 200 feet. All USN subs, except for a few of the very large boats and the S boats, had a test dive of 300 feet, later boats had a test dive of 350 feet.

That being said and agreeing with comments about the poor modeling of Japanese submarine doctrine, I do not have a probem with these submarines engaging in commerce warfare. However, I have not sunk a Japanese sub since they modded this. On the other hand, I have not lost a single ship that was adequately escorted. Whatever they did with the mod also works for US subs. I haven't had a submerged sub damaged since the mod. I figure by mid 44 I will sink the entire Japanese Merchant Marine.

The real effect of this mod is that the automatic convoy system is too dangerous to use. This makes for a lot of additional work with convoys, with dozens of bases that must be supplied by escorted convoys. A real PITA.

Given their size, range, speed, and torpedoes, Japanese submarines achieved surprisingly little. This was because they were mainly employed against warships, which were fast, maneuverable, and well-defended when compared to merchant ships. Japanese naval doctrine was built around the concept of fighting a single decisive battle, as they had done at Tsushima 40 years earlier. They thought of their submarines as scouts, whose main role was to locate, shadow, and attack Allied naval task forces.

The Japanese did, of course, make some attacks on merchant shipping in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, but these were the minority of missions. Frequently, they waited for fleets that were never seen, supported spectacularly brave but inconsequential reconnaissance flights, or toted midget submarines about, all of which achieved rather less than was possible with so valuable a resource as the Japanese submarine fleet. Worse from a naval perspective, Japanese submarines were increasingly employed in running supplies to the starving garrisons of isolated islands. The Japanese expended hundreds of sorties in this way, which might have otherwise been used offensively against the Allied war effort. A submarine's cargo capacity was much less than that of a relatively inexpensive freighter. However, Japan was understandably reluctant to let island garrisons starve. Additionally, many practically unarmed submarines (including 26 built for Army use) were built specifically for the supply role, consuming production resources as well.

For the Imperial Japanese Navy, however, submarines, as part of the Japanese warrior tradition of bushido, preferred to attack warships rather than transports. Faced with a convoy, an Allied submarine would try to sink the merchant vessels, while their Japanese counterparts would give first priority to the escorts. This was important in 1942, before Allied warship production came up to capacity. So, while the U.S. had an unusually long supply line between its west coast and frontline areas that was vulnerable to submarine attack, Japan's submarines were instead used for long range reconnaissance and to resupply strongholds which had been cut off, such as Truk and Rabaul.

Japanese submarines accounted for about 184 merchant ships with a tonnage of 907,000 tons, ( included in these figures are 98 US ships of 520,000 tons ). In addition they sank 2 Aircraft Carriers, 2 Cruisers, and 10 Destroyers.

Over a seven-day period, from December 18 to 24, 1941, nine Japanese submarines positioned at strategic points along the U.S. west coast attacked eight American merchant ships, of which two were sunk and two damaged. Six seamen were killed. It was the first and only time during the three years and eight months of war to come that more than one Japanese submarine appeared at the same time off the American coast.

I can't find the link (didn't think to copy it down along with the above) but there was one that mentioned Japanese submarines were only allocated one torpedo per merchant ship.

Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

Which is no longer there since that option has been taken away.

This is a moot point for PBEM games since it's up to the individual players on how they use their assets but isn't for those of us playing the AI who can't play with the old historical Japanese doctrine anymore.

In WitP the IJN boats almost always get to shoot at the Allied escorts first. And the IJN ASW ships almost always get to shoot at the Allied subs first. If there was really much of a connection to reality in this particular set of mechanics the RL historical losses of each side should reflect it. They do not.

Works for me.

I'm not as familiar with the IJN sub force in WitP as I was the USN's. IIRC IJN subs had superior commanders and crew xp. Assuming they factor into a 'quick-draw' formula, that may explain some of the disparity. Just my $.02.

Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

Which is no longer there since that option has been taken away.

This is a moot point for PBEM games since it's up to the individual players on how they use their assets but isn't for those of us playing the AI who can't play with the old historical Japanese doctrine anymore.

To be blunt about it, I have zero concern for AI play. Sorry, but it is a good training mode for PBEM. That's it.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

Japanese sub doctrine is clearly a decision that should fall within the purview of the player's choice.

Which is no longer there since that option has been taken away.

This is a moot point for PBEM games since it's up to the individual players on how they use their assets but isn't for those of us playing the AI who can't play with the old historical Japanese doctrine anymore.

To be blunt about it, I have zero concern for AI play. Sorry, but it is a good training mode for PBEM. That's it.

And also to be blunt about it I frankly get peeved with your crappy attitude and the attitude of those like you that think PBEM is the ONLY way to play this game.

I paid good money for this game and if I - and obviously others - like to play solo we should have that ability without having to get screwed in all these patches because of people like you who play PBEM and do things that none of the AI players would do. I've been dealing with this attitude since I bought the first WITP game and it's only got worse.

If this game wasn't intended to also be played solo the AI option wouldn't be there but it is so you PBEMers just have to deal with it.

We seem to go back and forth on when to model "historical" aspects of the war, and when we want to deviate. I don't think there should be much argument that Japanese sub doctrine did not emphasize sinking merchant ships, although it appears there is some disagreement about exactly how many they did sink. If the decision to not include the familiar "Japanese sub doctrine" switch was made because "it was not historical", why then have we gone to such nonhistorical modeling of the air war? I don't claim to have the encyclopedic knowledge of WW2 that some people on this forum seem to have, but practically everything I have read points out that the Japanese had trouble replacing skilled pilots after Pearl Harbor, and certainly by the time of Midway. I just read one of Willmott's books and he pointed out in more than one place that the Japanese were not able to replace their air losses as quickly as the Americans and so went into some conflicts without some of their CV's because of this, while other CV's were operational, but with reduced air power, and this is fairly early in the war. However, AE models the Japanese as having a supply of pilots that actually increases despite losses sustained, although the quality will go down over time. There have also been questions about whether the sheer number of planes the Japanese produce is historical or not.

So, it seems sometimes we model "historically", and sometimes we don't. To the extent that I can tweak the game by modding it I am fairly tolerant of which way these decisions go. When I can't modify the game to overcome some of these decisions then I am more likely to find them annoying. Right now I am not even playing because of the problems with training pilots, although I could modify the game to somewhat compensate for the slow training rates. Personally, I don't see the harm in having a switch that let's the player choose to activate the old Japanese sub doctrine that was in WitP.

As I've posted many times before, all of the major submarine navies had ideas, before WWII, that they would not attack merchants. Pre-war treaty agreements certainly reflected these hopes. However, once they became combatants, all these same major submairine navies abandoned same (including the Japanese).

In the first six months of the war, the IJA submarines sank something like 53 merchant ships (maybe it was 56, I've posted the exact number in previous WITP threads, but I'm on vacation right now and didn't bring all my sources with me . For those who wish to count them up, please open this book and grab a paper and pencil (as I did). http://www.usni.org/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=293.

Point is, it was impossible in WITP (and still is I think in AE) to reproduce the historical rate of IJN sinkings even with the "doctrine" switch off. I'm not sure what either (IJN or USN) of the "doctrine" switches were supposed to represent, hence we decided to remove both of these (the USN and IJN) switches in favor of switches we thought players would use more often. So for example, we now have the "Realistic Factories" and "No Unit Withdrawal" switches instead.

ORIGINAL: dereck And also to be blunt about it I frankly get peeved with your crappy attitude and the attitude of those like you that think PBEM is the ONLY way to play this game.

I paid good money for this game and if I - and obviously others - like to play solo we should have that ability without having to get screwed in all these patches because of people like you who play PBEM and do things that none of the AI players would do. I've been dealing with this attitude since I bought the first WITP game and it's only got worse.

If this game wasn't intended to also be played solo the AI option wouldn't be there but it is so you PBEMers just have to deal with it.

Wah wah wah. No one's stopping you. Have at it. It's not that PBEM is the only way to play, but it is the BEST way to play. What makes me absolutely laugh out loud is the arrogance of you AI-onlies who think you know what is the best way to play. Play both. If you go back to AI, fine. But you won't. Let me know if I've missed some rule that requires me to give a crap about AI play.

PBEM doesn't mean just the GC game either.

Addendum: To be perfectly correct, I think the very best way to play is head-to-head hotseat, but that is extremely difficult to arrange. PBEM is the best combination of convenience and competition.

< Message edited by Mynok -- 9/24/2009 9:47:15 PM >

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

What the sub force sinks and encounters is in large part a function of deployment more so than individual sub behavior.

If you patrol commerce lanes, you sink commerce shipping. If you are a fleet picket, you will more likely encounter Men of War.

Even US subs would go after capital ships first in encountered.

The only real issue is whether the IJN subs should go after escorts first rather than merchantmen, but since the IJN didn't really use subs in a commerce raiding role for the most part, hard to say what they would have done historically.

Do not beleive it to be all that significant, in that players will tend to employ subs in a commerce raiding role that in and of itself is ahistorical. Even the scripted AI will do this as well. So if the subs are going to be employed as commerce raiders, they need to attack the merchantmen and not the escorts.

I think the only issue is for Allied AI players who don't want the IJN submarines making havoc on their unescorted merchant convoys. Problems include that the Japanese did go after enemy merchant ships in the first six months of the war - and Allies didn't really use convoys in the Pacific during the period.

For PBEM games, I do not think there is any issue because the players have options as to how to use their vessels on both sides.

As to Allied versus AI games, I'd like to wait a bit before we decide things are broken. The new patch changed the ASW/Submarine aspect a bit and there have not been enought reports to really know how the balance has shifted.